ArticleBioMed research international2013
Spectrum of bacterial keratitis at a tertiary eye care centre in India.
Article in BioMed research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Bacterial profile of ocular infections: a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Pooled it
- Topical corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy for bacterial keratitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Antibiotic resistance mechanisms and global resistance patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in microbial keratitis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of bacterial keratitis in the South of Vietnam.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Symptoms as an Indicator of Microbial Keratitis Severity and Its Association With Visual Acuity.Eye & contact lens · 2025Observational
- A Study of Clinico-Microbiological Profile and Treatment Outcomes of Infectious Keratitis.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Infectious keratitis in Western New York: a 10-year review of patient demographics, clinical management, and treatment failure.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Molecular Characterization of Bacterial Agents Causing External Ocular Infections Isolates of Patients in a Third Level Hospital.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Microbiological spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of non-viral conjunctivitis over 16 years at a tertiary eye care center in Southern India.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial resistance in topical treatments for microbial keratitis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Assessment of Direct Costs of Admission Due to Presumed Microbial Keratitis in a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Thailand: A 7-Year Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Big data in corneal diseases and cataract: Current applications and future directions.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates from microbial keratitis in North and Central India: A multi centric study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Spectrum of bacterial keratitis in North India: A retrospective analysis of six years at a tertiary care eye center.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Clinical and Mycological Features of Fungal Keratitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study (2012-2018)Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic armamentarium of infectious keratitis: A comprehensive review.The ocular surface · 2022Review
- Clinical aspects and prognosis of polymicrobial keratitis caused by different microbial combinations: a retrospective comparative case study.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Speciation and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Coagulase Negative Staphylococci Isolated from Ocular Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Infectious keratitis: an update on epidemiology, causative microorganisms, risk factors, and antimicrobial resistance.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo report the aetiological spectrum and susceptibility patterns of bacteria isolated from patients with corneal ulceration.
methodThe microbiological data of all patients with suspected infectious corneal ulceration who presented to the ocular microbiology service at this centre between 2005 and 2012 were reviewed retrospectively.
resultMicroorganisms were recovered from 1665 (77%) of the 2170 ulcers. Bacterial isolates accounted for 1205 of the organisms isolated. The most common bacterial pathogens isolated were various species of Staphylococcus, representing 777 (64.5%), followed by Staphylococcus spp. (148; 12.3%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (117; 9.7%). High percentages of Gram-positive bacteria were susceptible to gatifloxacin (>94%), followed by ofloxacin and moxifloxacin. Almost 90% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin. Sixty-two (44%) of 140 isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, 79 (14.8%) of 534 isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 33 (14%) of 234 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus were resistant to three or more antibiotics.
conclusionStaphylococcus spp. were the most common bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with keratitis in this setting. High percentages of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were susceptible to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively. Interestingly, a high percentage of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were found to be resistant to three or more antibiotics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.